Development and testing of prototypes of unmanned aerial vehicles (bird-like drones) imitating the flight shape of a bird of prey

This tender is generally well-structured with clear project objectives and comprehensive documentation, but a critical inconsistency in the evaluation criteria significantly impacts its quality and data consistency.

The tender largely complies with legal requirements, featuring a reasonable submission period, appropriate CPV codes, and explicit adherence to EU/national regulations, including a clause for equivalent products. However, the contradiction regarding evaluation criteria is a procedural flaw.

The project description, technical specifications, and general requirements are clearly articulated. The instructions for participation and the draft contract enhance understanding. However, the conflicting information on evaluation criteria creates significant ambiguity.

The tender provides essential information such as title, reference, organization, estimated value, duration, and a full set of documents. While an estimated value is given, the 'Value Classified: Yes' status and the evaluation criteria inconsistency are minor gaps in full transparency.

Fairness is generally good, with full document access, a reasonable preparation deadline, and objective evaluation criteria (if 100% cost is indeed the final method). The explicit clause allowing equivalent products (RHS § 88) strongly supports fair competition. Requirements do not appear tailored to a specific company.

The tender supports electronic submission and e-procurement, which is practical. Key dates and duration are specified. However, the provided 'Opening Place' URL is general, not a direct link to the tender documents, and the XML format for ESPD, while standard, might require specific tools for easy review.

While most key fields are populated and dates are logical, there is a critical inconsistency regarding the evaluation criteria. The tender characteristics state 'relative_weighting', but the dedicated evaluation criteria document specifies 'total offer cost (excluding VAT), accounting for 100% of the weighting'. This is a major contradiction.

The project itself, focusing on developing innovative UAV prototypes, has an inherent innovation aspect. However, the tender lacks explicit green procurement or social criteria, which is a missed opportunity, especially for an EU-funded project.